So now the claim is that 30 years worth of weather is enough time to determine the climate for the entire planet for the next 50-150 years?

No tm, that's not what's the article is about, it's about how deniers often misinterpret data to "prove" that global warming isn't happening (the link was provided). The data is based upon 30 years of satellite data. As deniers often do is to take things out of context or only look at a portion of the evidence. The 30 year period is only a small portion of the temperature data that reflects increasing temperatures....some of the following might be helpful.

Temperature Trends20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest year globally was 2005 with the years 2009, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, and 1998 all tied for 2nd within statistical certainty. (Hansen et al., 2010) The warmest decade has been the 2000s, and each of the past three decades has been warmer than the decade before and each set records at their end. The odds of this being a natural occurrence are estimated to be one in a billion! (Schmidt and Wolfe, 2009)

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Not that I expect an answer to that question either since you ignored all the others and in fact are ignore then entire thread topic.

I guess you missed ClimateGate....come on tm. I raised many questions about postings of one individual who kept going to the same sites like C3 which ofter distort the findings of scientific papers....some examples and comments of others

No tm, that's not what's the article is about, it's about how deniers often misinterpret data to "prove" that global warming isn't happening (the link was provided). The data is based upon 30 years of satellite data. As deniers often do is to take things out of context or only look at a portion of the evidence. The 30 year period is only a small portion of the temperature data that reflects increasing temperatures....some of the following might be helpful.

So killing the messenger kills the message?

A bad messenger means you don't have to address criticisms or prove a point?

As for you links, if you don't care to add anything to them, then I'll give them as much time as you do which is none. Do you honestly think discussion is simply throwing books, papers, pamphlets at someone and declaring you've won because they won't read whatever or how much stuff you want to throw at them? The point either stands or it doesn't. Worse still, the very point of this thread eludes you entirely. It's like you are so busy spamming links, you don't even understand what the discussion happens to be.

I didn't miss it. You didn't and still haven't addressed the point of this thread. I even simplified it for you. You've ignored and instead merely go to different websites and spam this thread with the graphics from them. What you are doing is completely illogical and dissuades rather than persuades.

Here is the point from the OP.

My point exactly: We can't use short-term weather patterns as evidence. But the Global Warming Enthusiast Club does exactly that. We hear constantly about record temperatures in the summer that are "evidence" of climate change (notice how "global warming" is gone as a term since it's been totally discredited and mocked). We hear and read that global war...eh...climate change is causing record numbers of strong hurricanes. It's causing torrential rain. It's causing tornados. It's even causing blizzards!

If your local town has a record setting week of warm temperatures next August, you'll here scientists wandering on to your 24 cables news network telling you that the reason the weather is so hot is global warming. If we have a couple earthquakes in Mexico, get used to it, global warming. Hurricanes are named progressively following the alphabet. Thus during the Bush years when New Orleans got hit by Hurricane Katrina, we were told, better get used to seeing those later letters often due to global warming.

The question being asked is, why is weather support for global warming, but never falsifies global warming. We aren't talking about ignoramuses wandering around talking out there ass. Al Gore was the one declaring we would have ever more and ever escalating hurricanes as an example.

It doesn't appear logical or scientific. It simply appears exploitative and controlling. Regardless of the actual validity of global warming, it is not scientific to declare that localized and short term weather events are not climate and then turn around and declare that some random weather event is proof of climate.

Quote:

I guess you missed ClimateGate....come on tm. I raised many questions about postings of one individual who kept going to the same sites like C3 which ofter distort the findings of scientific papers....some examples and comments of others

You are not seriously claiming that two wrongs makes a right are you? You're not seriously claiming that because you feel someone acted badly in one thread, you get to crap all over an entirely different thread created by an entirely different person for an entirely different purpose.

However based on what I've seen in this thread, it's pretty clear you do feel that way.

Those were thoroughly answered. When you ignore answers or sidestep the point, what you end up doing is fully justifying that which you claim to abhor, (yet practice) namely just dropping information and not actually contributing anything.

Why would anyone ever practice what they claim to hate? Why not be better than it?

You claim to hate posts that answer no questions or that provide links with no input or conclusions from the person providing them.

Yet that is exactly how your posting style. How can you complain about what you do?

Weather isn't climate, except when it supports climate change. Then weather is climate. That is the point.

Ironically it even issues the same old trope at the end of the article...

Quote:

As the world warms, even cold air from the Arctic or Siberia may not be enough to offset the greenhouse effect, and major snowstorms like the one the Northeast just experienced could be a thing of the past.

We promised winter would disappear. It hasn't in fact it is here in record amounts. Our prediction is wrong. Wrong makes us right. When our prediction that is currently completely wrong becomes right in the future, that makes us right too.

Science must predict. It must be falsifiable. You can't do what the article does, or cite ten links from your favorite source, add nothing and then move on and that is theory hopscotch.

Quote:

One theory is that a warmer Arctic may actually lead to colder and snowier winters in the northern mid-latitudes.

Theories are not just interchangeable pieces where you can borrow from this one on this day and from another one on another day.

Quote:

That's not the only theory. Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at the environmental research firm AER, has written that increasing seasonal snow cover in Siberia may drive extreme winter weather.

Great a second theory and no real explanation on any of them. Don't worry, if next week we have record highs, that weather will prove climate as well, and we can go grab two different theories by two other scientists and ignore these two scientists while we still make the same claims.

This all addresses the actual thread topic which is what I hope you will do as well.

BTW. I could engage in bad logic though. I could declare you acted badly in another thread and thus I can treat you badly in this one.

I could create a hypothetical and if you refuse to engage me on it, declare you are actually ducking the issue by actually focusing on it instead of the hypothetical...........

Suppose Hitler would have invented a zero carbon energy source, but it would have required him winning WWII, and exterminating the entire Jewish race to make it come to fruition, would you save the planet but sacrifice those people?

It's called a moral paradox for a reason. They aren't hard to design. (Sego understands that) However pondering paradoxes (or being unwilling to engage in them) doesn't address the thread topic.

I could also intentionally misconstrue you, address and accuse based on that, and then claim you haven't answered something when you refuse to address what I assigned to you instead of what you said.

Quote:

Plus it looks like 2010 may be according to NASA: Hottest November on record, 2010 likely hottest year on record globally — despite deepest solar minimum in a century

Example: Oh so now you are saying that one hot year determines climate for the next 50-150 years? Here's a link from your own source saying one year could never be enough data to draw a trend and here's another from very basic math primer noting you cannot plot a line with one point.

How do you explain trying to use one data point to plot a line FT? You said this one point plots the line. So answer me to my satisfaction now or you are ducking the point.

Please don't answer any of these btw, because they are all examples of the types of "questions" people complain aren't answered around here.

You can see, this stuff isn't hard to do. So now that I've addressed those for you, feel free to take any unanswered "questions" back to their respective threads, be it climategate or whatever and please address the question of this thread, hopefully with something other than links to bumper stickers.

So short-term weather patterns prove global warming is true because an architect designs bumper stickers that support the belief that helps his business prosper.......

........or something like that.

Global warming is not true just because the bumper stickers say it is. If you believe everything you read off of a bumper sticker is true, then you need help. The stickers do not mention short term weather patterns...somehow you have incorrectly inferred that. What the stickers do refer about global warming the growing scientific evidence supporting it.

I'm sure that there are global warming deniers who make money selling bumperstickers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

FT, do you deny that news sources and global warming supporters regularly highlight short term trends or temporary weather patterns as proof of global warming/climate change?

That would depend upon the news source. As posted below, I'd watch what you get from Fox News. Sites like Watt's up and C3 tend to mischaracterize scientific papers making their own incorrect inferences....I pointed this out several times in ClimateGate.....if you want you can look back yourself.

As in this postI generally refer to sources that talk about temperature trends or patterns. Someone else here and in Climategate posts about the cold winter weather in Europe, therefore global warming isn't happening...a mini ice age is coming....or other miscellaneous BS.

The planet is heating up, thanks to human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases.* But as a new NOAA-led study, An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (subs. reqd, release here) concluded:

Quote:

[S]ince 1950, the planet released about 20 percent of the warming influence of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to outer space as infrared energy. Volcanic emissions lingering in the stratosphere offset about 20 percent of the heating by bouncing solar radiation back to space before it reached the surface. Cooling from the lower-atmosphere aerosols produced by humans balanced 50 percent of the heating. Only the remaining 10 percent of greenhouse-gas warming actually went into heating the Earth, and almost all of it went into the ocean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Shouldn't something about this science be predictive CURRENTLY as opposed to 50-100 years from now?

Suggest that you read some of the sites that I use. There is both short term and long term outlooks. Short term predictions are that the SW US is in fro a drier and warmer summer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Is anyone really going to be convinced with heads I win, tails you lose reasoning where the supporters put themselves above falsifiability?

Most of the sources I use base their opinions upon scientific papers. The accumulating evidence more supports the fact that global warming is occurring and suggest human influences as the cause.

The heads I win and tails you loose is more a deniers tactic. Misconstrue one science paper and all of global warming is debunked....Just read Watt's Up and C3.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

But SDW....The weather pattern for the last 100-150 years may be enough to show that the climate is getting warmer. Also other data which can show climate trends and patterns are more reliable than you think....and there is more and more evidence pointing to "global warming."

Contrary to some post here and in ClimateGate, global temperature trend over past 30 years has been increasing. You might have an area that might have a abnormally cold winter in one area, but this does not negate the overall global trend.

Figure 1: University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) temperature chart from January 1979 to November 2010. This chart is shown with no trend lines so the viewer may make his own judgment.
The temperature chart is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers a 30 year period from 1979 to the present. The red curve indicates the average temperature throughout the entire Earth.

The red line represents the average temperature.The top of the curves are warmer years caused by El Niño; a weather phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean gives out heat thus warming the Earth. The bottoms of the curves are usually La Niña years which cool the Earth. Volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991 will also cool the Earth so they are not counted. Although they are effected by Global Warming, El Niños and La Niñas occur whether or not there is Global Warming.

Figure 2: Illustration of how 'skeptics' distort the evidence.
The same temperature chart, showing how 'skeptics', manipulate the data to give the impression that 'Global Cooling' began in 1998. They left out 19 years of inconvenient data as well as failed to make a distinction between warm El Niños and cool La Niñas.

Global warming is not true just because the bumper stickers say it is. If you believe everything you read off of a bumper sticker is true, then you need help. The stickers do not mention short term weather patterns...somehow you have incorrectly inferred that. What the stickers do refer about global warming the growing scientific evidence supporting it.

I'm sure that there are global warming deniers who make money selling bumperstickers.

What is this nonsense? You are seriously chastizing me and alleging some nonsense about bumper stickers when you are the guy who bombed the thread with them in some attempt to distract?

You post stickers.
I point out they prove nothing.
You declare I need help for believing bumper stickers are proof of something.
I point out again, I didn't post bumper stickers as proof. You did.

Quote:

That would depend upon the news source. As posted below, I'd watch what you get from Fox News. Sites like Watt's up and C3 tend to mischaracterize scientific papers making their own incorrect inferences....I pointed this out several times in ClimateGate.....if you want you can look back yourself.

I gave a specific example. You've ignored it. You've not answered any questions related to that example. You've not answered any questions put to you in this thread.

Quote:

Suggest that you read some of the sites that I use. There is both short term and long term outlooks. Short term predictions are that the SW US is in fro a drier and warmer summer.

The point is the prior short term predictions have proven wrong. Now there is an alternate theory being put forward and publicized by the same news sources that publicized the prior wrong short term predictions. Additionally, the main point of the thread is still ignored by you and that is the fact that when these short term predictions are wrong, falsifiability is simply ignored. We are told not to think critically and that weather is not climate and variability is the excuse for ignoring proof of evidence against climate change but never can be used to refute climate change.

Quote:

Most of the sources I use base their opinions upon scientific papers. The accumulating evidence more supports the fact that global warming is occurring and suggest human influences as the cause.

I don't need a rationale for why you continue to ignore the discussion and spam the thread.

Quote:

The heads I win and tails you loose is more a deniers tactic. Misconstrue one science paper and all of global warming is debunked....Just read Watt's Up and C3.

Falsifiability isn't a denier tactic. It is part of the scientific process. If a study does not allow for it, then it is a bad study. It doesn't matter how many other scientists don't care to point this out because they prefer the conclusions or how many grant dollars were awarded or at stake, or any other nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You can bomb the thread all you want. The data shows, at max, a .6 degree warming trend over 100 years. The average global temp has varied by far, far more--long before humans.

It has varied by more than that while humans have been around. However the point is that variability, much like falsifiability, is now dismissed as a "tactic". Noting farming in Greenland is just a big oil lie for example. Nothing different weather patterns, even in the recent past or records that show similar cold stretches or warm period but before we used carbon fuels, proves nothing to Warm-mongers. The blinders are on and they will spam because it's like repeating a mantra they can concentrate on rather than engage in discussion.

Truly hilarious. Tell me: If the evidence is so indisputable, then why is something like that rebuttal list even necessary? Beyond that, I find several points interesting.

"Temp record is unreliable"\tAnswer: The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

---Funny, because I'm sure that there have been several cases of proven errors from current measuring equipment. Moreover, this argument is usually applied to past temperature records. Specifically, past measurement data (from say 100 years ago) was not as accurate--certainly not to within a tenth of a degree, which is the level required when we discuss .6 degrees of "warming" over a century.

"It's freaking cold!"\tAnswer: A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.

--- But a local hot day or hot week does? That is the entire point of the thread.

"Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"\tThere is increasing evidence that hurricanes are getting stronger due to global warming.

-- Complete horse shit. I love how the graph stops at about 2005, after which hurricanes virtually disappeared.

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

1. Do you honestly believe this? (bold)

2. Refute the the points made in this video summary. C02 does not cause warming.

Quote:

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2

Let's take a step back for a moment, and ask some simple questions: C02 is a naturally occurring gas, one that is produced by all mammals. It is also emitted--in huge quantities--by volcanoes and other natural phenomena. Given all that, how is it possible that humans contributing 3% more by burning fossil fuels are destroying the planet? Given all the violence of nature, do you really believe that Earth is that fragile?

Here's the best question of all, however: Let's assume you and the Global Warming Enthusiasts are completely correct. Let's say C02 causes warming, and that humans are the main force in climate change. Great. What the hell do we do about it? Answer: We can't realistically do anything that matters. Given the notion that a 3% increase in carbon emissions causes global disaster, we could reduce our carbon emissions 80% (impossible) and still not make a difference. Why? Because as the Warming Enthusiast Club argues, even the smallest contribution by humans will cause a catastrophe! So even if we mandated that every vehicle on the road runs w/o emissions, even if we reduced factory emissions by 80% or more, even if we all but returned to the pre-industrial world emissions-wise, it would still not be enough.

Perhaps that isn't even the best question though. It begs others, such as: If we can't realistically do enough to reduce emissions in order to stop global warming, why are we trying something else? Why aren't we focusing our energies on things that might make a difference? Why aren't we studying technologies to scrub the atmosphere of C02? Why are we instead focusing on carbon cap-and-trade schemes that will do NOTHING to help the environment?

Answer? Because it's all bullshit. It's nothing more than dollar signs and redistribution. If it wasn't, we would see real solutions being investigated by governments around the globe. But we don't see that. We see cap-and-tax/trade, corrupt processes that exclude some of the planets biggest polluters, pseudo-science and outright data falsification.

Rebut that.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Truly hilarious. Tell me: If the evidence is so indisputable, then why is something like that rebuttal list even necessary?

Why do we need to debate the age of the Earth? Why do we need to debate the validity of the theory of evolution vs creationism?

Ignorant people believe a whole lot of horseshit shoveled to them by other less ignorant people with agendas or with not only willful blindness but the insecure need to get others to believe the same things.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Ignorant people believe a whole lot of horseshit shoveled to them by other less ignorant people with agendas or with not only willful blindness but the insecure need to get others to believe the same things.

It's true. I've seen this in the realm of economics and theory of government quite a bit. For example: Ignorant people believe in Keynesian economics which has been shoveled to them by other less ignorant people with agendas. As another example, ignorant people believe that the state is good, nobel and morally upstanding which is an idea shoveled to them by other less ignorant people with agendas

Yup, you still believe in trickle down and that corporations will be compassionate on their own despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You have a galactic blind spot. Same horseshit, different package.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Why do we need to debate the age of the Earth? Why do we need to debate the validity of the theory of evolution vs creationism?

Ignorant people believe a whole lot of horseshit shoveled to them by other less ignorant people with agendas or with not only willful blindness but the insecure need to get others to believe the same things.

That second phrase wonderfully describes the entire industry around Global Warming BR!

So succinct too. Clearly the agenda around Global Warming is one of control of land, resources, and wealth. Why with a carbon tax, we become sharecroppers to Mother Gaia with the appropriate well intentioned people taking their cut off the top for being so smart, thoughtful and well, they have to buy their carbon indulgences in some manner don't they? They certainly can't live like us peasants.

Yup, you still believe in trickle down and that corporations will be compassionate on their own despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You have a galactic blind spot. Same horseshit, different package.

I truly appreciate what you're doing here. It's saving both of us a lot of time. It's helpful when people like you tell me what I believe. It's much more efficient than me actually telling you what I think and believe and explaining it and you taking the time to listen/read and try to understand. Making assumptions is far more efficient. Jolly good job old mate!

That second phrase wonderfully describes the entire industry around Global Warming BR!

Uh huh. Thousands of scientists whose pursuit of knowledge of how the universe works are all conspiring to lie in a very roundabout get-rich-quick scheme. These scientists say screw their ideals, screw the pursuit of truth, and throw out everything they held dear that led them to the life of a scientist just to perpetuate a field of study that is completely made up.

Sure. Bullshit.

The realities of global warming disrupt the current polluting paradigm. Change is hard. It's no surprise that it's the conservatives, who fear and hate change, are the ones who yell the loudest against it.

Anyway, hitting the road. I don't expect you or your brethren to change over the next few days.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Uh huh. Thousands of scientists whose pursuit of knowledge of how the universe works are all conspiring to lie in a very roundabout get-rich-quick scheme. These scientists say screw their ideals, screw the pursuit of truth, and throw out everything they held dear that led them to the life of a scientist just to perpetuate a field of study that is completely made up.

Sure. Bullshit.

Not bullshit at all. If you look at federal dollars spent on research, they've been huge. If someone suggested to you that there is a military industrial complex, you'd believe it in a hot second. Yet to suggest the same with federal research is bullshit?

Quote:

The realities of global warming disrupt the current polluting paradigm. Change is hard. It's no surprise that it's the conservatives, who fear and hate change, are the ones who yell the loudest against it.

No one is against preventing pollution. The problem is the goalposts have been moved to impossible goals and targets that harm people. When national parks were started (by a Republican BTW, not that you'll remember that) the goal was enjoyment by people and the very nature of conservation aka conserving and conservative are all in alignment. Managing resources isn't the goal of environmentalists in this day and age. There are no acceptable trade offs. Federal agencies have been taking federal lands and reclassifying them as pristine which makes them unaccessible and untouchable to most people. Really is someone a polluter who hates change and lives in fear just because a road built into a forest might allow people to actually enjoy the land that has been set aside?

Quote:

Anyway, hitting the road. I don't expect you or your brethren to change over the next few days.

I don't expect the profanity ridden caricatured thoughts of the left to change in the next few days either.

Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Quote:

"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Quote:

"Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Quote:

"By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Quote:

"If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

Quote:

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Quote:

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

Why do we need to debate the validity of the theory of evolution vs creationism?

We don't, because it's a false dilemma.

Ignorant people believe a whole lot of horseshit shoveled to them by other less ignorant people with agendas or with not only willful blindness but the insecure need to get others to believe the same things.[/QUOTE]

OK.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Yup, you still believe in trickle down and that corporations will be compassionate on their own despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. You have a galactic blind spot. Same horseshit, different package.

I don't believe corporations will be compassionate any more than I believe government will be compassionate. Corporations pursue profit. Government pursues control. Also, you're correct..there is a mountain of evidence. It supports the efficacy of trickle-down economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Uh huh. Thousands of scientists whose pursuit of knowledge of how the universe works are all conspiring to lie in a very roundabout get-rich-quick scheme.

I don't believe I or anyone else has claimed that.

Quote:

These scientists say screw their ideals,

Should scientists have ideals?

Quote:

screw the pursuit of truth, and throw out everything they held dear that led them to the life of a scientist just to perpetuate a field of study that is completely made up.

It's not the data that's the problem, at least not exclusively. It's how it's being used and manipulated by corrupt political organizations, governments and corporations. C02 is rising--that is a fact. The Earth has warmed between .2 and .6 degrees centigrade..that is a fact. The debate is about what these facts mean, both for present times and the future.

Therein lies the rub, because we have forces that wish to use the data for their own ends, be they governmental control, global redistribution of wealth, or simple profit. Of course, we also have industries that stand to lose from climate change mitigation schemes. Why is it that you and Global Warming Enthusiast Club focus only on the latter?

Quote:

Sure. Bullshit.

The realities of global warming disrupt the current polluting paradigm.

What do we do about it, then? We could revert to 1900-level C02 emissions and it still wouldn't be enough. I know because your side says so: "Even the smallest human contribution throws off the delicate balance of nature into convulsions, causing global catastrophe." What should we do...go back to being an agrarian society?

Quote:

Change is hard. It's no surprise that it's the conservatives, who fear and hate change, are the ones who yell the loudest against it.

None of that means we aren't moving in the wrong direction climatewise. I don't think anyone can predict so accurately that they can put a date on things going bad. But we can deduce what direction it's going and we can see tangible results of that direction.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

No tm, that's not what's the article is about, it's about how deniers often misinterpret data to "prove" that global warming isn't happening (the link was provided). The data is based upon 30 years of satellite data. As deniers often do is to take things out of context or only look at a portion of the evidence. The 30 year period is only a small portion of the temperature data that reflects increasing temperatures....some of the following might be helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

So killing the messenger kills the message?

A bad messenger means you don't have to address criticisms or prove a point?

As for you links, if you don't care to add anything to them, then I'll give them as much time as you do which is none. Do you honestly think discussion is simply throwing books, papers, pamphlets at someone and declaring you've won because they won't read whatever or how much stuff you want to throw at them? The point either stands or it doesn't. Worse still, the very point of this thread eludes you entirely. It's like you are so busy spamming links, you don't even understand what the discussion happens to be.

tm, so when someone who doesn't agree with you shoots the messenger its wrong, you just missed me, close but missed. It's ok if you do it.

Why is it bad when I just post a link with an abstract of the article? Others have done the same. I find that the abstract of the article that I post is sufficient. If others just post the link, I'm fine with it, just prefer having the link and the abstract....if it interest me then I'll go to the link. IMO what I post is relevant, related to or is a counter point to the thread or what is posted in it. If you disagree then you are free to argue and make a comment as I have done in another thread.

Never said I won, but when someone doesn't defend what he has posted, then you question whether the person believes what he posts....others have made comments to that fact in ClimateGate about a certain member...yet you defended him not having to answer....double standards?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

I didn't miss it. You didn't and still haven't addressed the point of this thread. I even simplified it for you. You've ignored and instead merely go to different websites and spam this thread with the graphics from them. What you are doing is completely illogical and dissuades rather than persuades.

Here is the point from the OP.

My point exactly: We can't use short-term weather patterns as evidence. But the Global Warming Enthusiast Club does exactly that. We hear constantly about record temperatures in the summer that are "evidence" of climate change (notice how "global warming" is gone as a term since it's been totally discredited and mocked). We hear and read that global war...eh...climate change is causing record numbers of strong hurricanes. It's causing torrential rain. It's causing tornados. It's even causing blizzards!

So one can't challenge the premise of the OP? IMO sometimes you can use short term weather patterns if you also consider the over-all trend and supporting evidence:

You are not seriously claiming that two wrongs makes a right are you? You're not seriously claiming that because you feel someone acted badly in one thread, you get to crap all over an entirely different thread created by an entirely different person for an entirely different purpose.

However based on what I've seen in this thread, it's pretty clear you do feel that way.

Those were thoroughly answered. When you ignore answers or sidestep the point, what you end up doing is fully justifying that which you claim to abhor, (yet practice) namely just dropping information and not actually contributing anything.

You insinuated that I failed to answers questions, so just pointed out the kettle calling the pot black. To get off topic, others might have a different opinion as to whether you answered it or not. You might have responded, but you didn't answer the question. 'Nuff said.

Weather isn't climate, except when it supports climate change. Then weather is climate. That is the point.

Ironically it even issues the same old trope at the end of the article...

We promised winter would disappear. It hasn't in fact it is here in record amounts. Our prediction is wrong. Wrong makes us right. When our prediction that is currently completely wrong becomes right in the future, that makes us right too.

Science must predict. It must be falsifiable. You can't do what the article does, or cite ten links from your favorite source, add nothing and then move on and that is theory hopscotch.

Theories are not just interchangeable pieces where you can borrow from this one on this day and from another one on another day.

Never said that weather is climate...we made this clear in another thread, but also you cannot ignore that 2010 is one of the hottest years recorded. Taken in context, 2010 follows some recent years temperature records. Add all of this to the other evidence of temperature trends. Alpine glaciers, arctic and antarctic glaciers and ice caps are rapidly disappearing. Siberian and arctic tundras are melting...Russians have never seen a siberian thaw. These are indicators of a changing warming climate patterns.

If you read the science journals you find that there are both short and long term predictions...you just fail to find them. I'd repost them here along with other papers, but you think that this is bombing the thread. Unfortunately our popular press print mostly controversial issues with global warming. Some are biased and report mostly denier POV.

I have added comments to the articles when I felt there needed to be an explanation, but most stand up for themselves and shouldn't need commentary.

Most of my postings offer supporting evidence of the Global Warming Theory, and are not a theory hopscotch.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Truly hilarious. Tell me: If the evidence is so indisputable, then why is something like that rebuttal list even necessary? Beyond that, I find several points interesting.

Simple, deniers often take scientific papers out of context or misconstrue the facts presented therein. This was previously pointed several times in another thread and to go over it here again might be considered bombing the thread, however some examples:

In August 2010, Nature published a commentary by Penner et al. which mainly focused on the uncertainty regarding the effect short-lived pollutants (such as aerosols and black carbon) have on the climate. As is often the case, many in the blogosphere misinterpreted and misunderstood the statements and conclusions in the commentary. Not surprisingly, the biggest misinterpretation related to the contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases to global warming. Below is the most misunderstood quote, with emphasis on the key word.

Quote:

"Of the short-lived species, methane, tropospheric ozone and black carbon are key contributors to global warming, augmenting the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide by 65%. Others such as sulphate, nitrate and organic aerosols cause a negative radiative forcing, offsetting a fraction of the warming owing to carbon dioxide."

Numerous blogs have (mis)interpreted this statement to mean that carbon dioxide is only causing 35% as much global warming as previously believed. A more accurate reading of the quote is that certain short-lived pollutants cause warming in addition to carbon dioxide - quantitatively, approximately 65% as much warming as CO2. And certain other short-lived species cause a cooling effect which offsets some of this warming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Here's the best question of all, however: Let's assume you and the Global Warming Enthusiasts are completely correct. Let's say C02 causes warming, and that humans are the main force in climate change. Great. What the hell do we do about it? Answer: We can't realistically do anything that matters. Given the notion that a 3% increase in carbon emissions causes global disaster, we could reduce our carbon emissions 80% (impossible) and still not make a difference. Why? Because as the Warming Enthusiast Club argues, even the smallest contribution by humans will cause a catastrophe! So even if we mandated that every vehicle on the road runs w/o emissions, even if we reduced factory emissions by 80% or more, even if we all but returned to the pre-industrial world emissions-wise, it would still not be enough.

Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has eemained relatively constant. When CO2emissions were low, the amount of CO2absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human CO2 emissions sharply increased in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature increased correspondingly. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.

To start, reduce emission, stop deforestation look at cleaner technologies, better than what you propose....do nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Perhaps that isn't even the best question though. It begs others, such as: If we can't realistically do enough to reduce emissions in order to stop global warming, why are we trying something else? Why aren't we focusing our energies on things that might make a difference? Why aren't we studying technologies to scrub the atmosphere of C02? Why are we instead focusing on carbon cap-and-trade schemes that will do NOTHING to help the environment?

We are making a start in looking at alternative sources of energy, but the deniers keep the public and our government think that AGW is a myth....Don't look for anything happening in the next session of congress.

Upton once considered a moderate on environmental issues, but has worked hard to refashion himself as a hard-right defender of pollution in recent months. Some Tea Party groups tried to block Upton from taking the gavel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, attacking his past support for energy-efficient light bulbs. Upton previously claimed that climate change is a serious problem and that the world will be better off if we reduced carbon emissions. However, in the course of the past two years as he received $20,000 from Koch Industries Upton has shifted to oppose not only cap-and-trade legislation but any form of limits on climate pollution whatsoever, instead supporting investigations against climate scientists and lawsuits against the EPA and its supposed unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Answer? Because it's all bullshit. It's nothing more than dollar signs and redistribution. If it wasn't, we would see real solutions being investigated by governments around the globe. But we don't see that. We see cap-and-tax/trade, corrupt processes that exclude some of the planets biggest polluters, pseudo-science and outright data falsification.

Rebut that.

More $$$ comes from oil companies funding the deniers than what funds climate research.

Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe.

FYI bovine fecal matter is a major contributor to another greenhouse gas....methane.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Uh huh. Thousands of scientists whose pursuit of knowledge of how the universe works are all conspiring to lie in a very roundabout get-rich-quick scheme. These scientists say screw their ideals, screw the pursuit of truth, and throw out everything they held dear that led them to the life of a scientist just to perpetuate a field of study that is completely made up.

Sure. Bullshit.

The realities of global warming disrupt the current polluting paradigm. Change is hard. It's no surprise that it's the conservatives, who fear and hate change, are the ones who yell the loudest against it.

Anyway, hitting the road. I don't expect you or your brethren to change over the next few days.

A lot of big oil $$ goes to fund the deniers....but that's not important.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

What is this nonsense? You are seriously chastizing me and alleging some nonsense about bumper stickers when you are the guy who bombed the thread with them in some attempt to distract?

You post stickers.
I point out they prove nothing.
You declare I need help for believing bumper stickers are proof of something.
I point out again, I didn't post bumper stickers as proof. You did.

Tm, maybe I should have said that the bumperstickers were posted to lighten things up a bit. They by themselves are not proof of AGW. There is however growing evidence to support AGW but there are skeptics and deniers who remained unconvinced. There are news sources who often mischaracterize the facts. As a former skeptic, I believe that the growing amount of evidence is indisputably pointing to the fact that AGW is real.

If you think that providing evidence that Global Warming is happening and that the human input is a major cause of it is bombing the thread, fine. IMO my postings are relevant, but the bumperstickers were just posted for some levity.....if you are all too serious to sometimes take things in jest, then move on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

I gave a specific example. You've ignored it. You've not answered any questions related to that example. You've not answered any questions put to you in this thread.

I answered your questions, you just didn't like them. If you can't accept an article that's on point that's not my problem. If you have questions about the posted article, then raise them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

FT, do you deny that news sources and global warming supporters regularly highlight short term trends or temporary weather patterns as proof of global warming/climate change?

This was answered, but I will expand on it. It's more the skeptics and deniers that talk of the winter weather in Europe and NA as evidence that Global Warming supporters got it wrong. They ingnore the other evidence that weather patterns for the past decade show increasing temperatures. Taken with other evidence, and long term temperature data, global warming is hard to deny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

The point is the prior short term predictions have proven wrong. Now there is an alternate theory being put forward and publicized by the same news sources that publicized the prior wrong short term predictions. Additionally, the main point of the thread is still ignored by you and that is the fact that when these short term predictions are wrong, falsifiability is simply ignored. We are told not to think critically and that weather is not climate and variability is the excuse for ignoring proof of evidence against climate change but never can be used to refute climate change.

Most of the short term predictions have predicted an increase in average global temperatures. The denier will take lower regional temperatures and ignore the overall global data. Most of what I've read supports that there will be climatic extremes...some areas will have more drought and some more intense rains, most will have hotter climates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Falsifiability isn't a denier tactic. It is part of the scientific process. If a study does not allow for it, then it is a bad study. It doesn't matter how many other scientists don't care to point this out because they prefer the conclusions or how many grant dollars were awarded or at stake, or any other nonsense.

Actually falsifiability isn't a denier's tactic, deniers just deny offering no scientific evidence to support their position. I've pointed that out several times where the denier's blogs will take something out of context or misconstrue the data or findings but failing to support their position with data. I will not go over this again...you can search out my postings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

It has varied by more than that while humans have been around. However the point is that variability, much like falsifiability, is now dismissed as a "tactic". Noting farming in Greenland is just a big oil lie for example. Nothing different weather patterns, even in the recent past or records that show similar cold stretches or warm period but before we used carbon fuels, proves nothing to Warm-mongers. The blinders are on and they will spam because it's like repeating a mantra they can concentrate on rather than engage in discussion.

Geneva, 20 January 2011 (WMO) - The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998.....

Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record, with an average monthly extent of 12 million square kilometres, 1.35 million square kilometres below the 1979-2000 average for December. This follows the third-lowest minimum ice extent recorded in September.

Quote:

The 2010 data confirm the Earths significant long-term warming trend, said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. The ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998.

Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average, and are the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records. Recent warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic, with many subregions registering temperatures 1.2 to 1.4°C (2.2 to 2.5°F) above the long-term average.

Arctic sea ice extent fell to the lowest level observed during the month of December since the beginning of satellite monitoring in 1979, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced today. While sea ice has been declining for the past few decades as Arctic air and water temperatures have warmed, NSIDC scientists say an additional contributor is an unusual weather pattern that has kept parts of the Arctic unusually warm, while simultaneously driving cold air and snowstorms into parts of the U.S. and Europe.

Explains why colder winters in NA and Europe

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Yeah, yeah. We know. We've heard it all before. The short-term, local weather doesn't have anything to do with the climate...or something like that. Unless it's "unusually" hot (in the summer) or something...or unusually low in snow in the winter....or something.

Yeah, yeah. We know. We've heard it all before. The short-term, local weather doesn't have anything to do with the climate...or something like that. Unless it's "unusually" hot (in the summer) or something...or unusually low in snow in the winter....or something.

Whatever.

The trend of rising temps will mean stiffling heat, particularily in US cities. That doesn't concern you?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

A decade ago, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen first suggested we were living in the Anthropocene, a new geological epoch in which humans had altered the planet. Now, in an article for Yale Environment 360, Crutzen and a coauthor explain why adopting this term could help transform the perception of our role as stewards of the Earth......

Is human activity altering the planet on a scale comparable to major geological events of the past? Scientists are now considering whether to officially designate a new geological epoch to reflect the changes that homo sapiens have wrought: the Anthropocene.....

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Yes, we definately are, the righties here though are ignoring it, pretending it's a fraud. I was thinking about this recently and thought a nice conspiracy theory might be that Dem's or other Commies might be deliberately trying to feed the BS that claims it's all a fraud, because as time goes on it's going to make such claims even more absurd and dangerous and cast such a critical eye on their lies that people see them for what they are and dessert the righties in favour of the correct lefties, therebye destroying support to such a degree that it furthers a Commie agenda.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.